BIBLICAL OLD TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY

The Bible geneaology of the old testament book of Genesis, can they
be used to set dates in Biblical history?

Nearly all who know about the Biblical Scriptures have at one time wondered
when Adam was created and when was the flood! Seems like a simple enough question,
just add up the numbers in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 and you have the dates: right?
Unfortunately it is not that simple! When one adds up the numbers it is usually
assumed that the genealogies given are a continuous listing of fathers and the
year and name of the first direct son, and that there is only one son of that name.
We are told that each had many offspring, for example a tradition is that Adam and Eve
had 33 sons and 23 daughters. The ancient Hebrew wording has no designation for
grandfather, great grandfather, grandson, great grandson, etc.. The son mentioned
could possibly be a son who some how distinguished themself or was the most
favored son and not the first son. We all know of the custom in some families
to have the same name for many generations and use designations like senior and
junior or designations like I, II, III, etc.. (In 12th Dynasty Egypt there were
4 kings named Amenem-het, 18th Dynasty had 4 Thutmoses and 4 Amenhoteps, and there
were 11 Ramesses in the 19th and 20th Dynasties. Assyria had 4 kings named Shal-maneser.
And in the Scriptures there were 2 Abimelech, 2 Jabin and 2 Enoch.)
And to further complicate the matter we have number differences between the Masoretic text and the
Septuagint translation due to possible transcription or
translation differences. And also the Masoretic text omits Cainan ( or Kainan )
which the Septuagint includes in 11:12-13. However, Luke also includes Cainan in his genealogy
which seems to support the Septuagint translation.

Therefore, depending upon the preferred translation and interpretations
of key passages by those doing the calculations
we have greatly different end results. For the creation of Adam for instance
different scholars have given us dates of 4,004 BC, 5,490 BC, 10,842 BC, and
12,028 BC as a few examples. And for the date of the flood 2,348 BC, 3,228 BC,
4,819 BC, and 5,799 BC are a few examples. ( see Appendix A ) The numbers from the Septuagint provide
later dates than those of the Masoretic text. For millenniums the standard way was to
assume that there was a direct father-son relationship for each name given and that
the year given was the birth year of the direct son. From these calculations we
get the lower values for the creation of Adam and the flood. But many students
were not fully satisfied with these values since the archaeological evidences being
uncovered did not seem to confirm these early dates. Then along came Harold
Camping who proposed that unless it was obvious from the text that there was a direct father-son
relationship, there was instead an ancestral relationship with the named descendant
being born during the year of the death of the patriarch. This method gives the much
later dates and seems to correlate more closely to the information being presented
by archaeologists. But again these calculations did not seem to satisfy many
since it deviated greatly from the standard interpretations of the Hebrew text.

Well then how does one choose between the various dates given? Not an easy proposition
to resolve! However, there is another possibility not so often considered. In the
Hebrew text there are overlooked occurrances of a single Hebrew letter separator
interjected within the text of chapters 5 and 11 ( see Appendix B ). That is the
Hebrew letter "Samech", the fifteenth Hebrew letter which as a numeric stands for
sixty and is equivalent to the English letter S. It occurs between sets of
verses pertaining to many, but not all, of the patriarchs and would seem to indicate that the
information concerning most of the patriarchs stand alone and should be
more properly considered as very short separate paragraphs. This we are proposing
is a designation of a separation between most of the patriarchs dominion. An
indicator that the text is not intended to be treated as one continuous chronological
record. The samech break reportedly indicates a break to a lesser degree, however,
in the Masoretic text Genesis record paragraph breaks are seldom indicated. And in the
case of the samech breaks the majority of them are in chapters 5 and 11. Therefore,
we propose that these breaks are very significant and should not be ignored.
( To view a translation of chapters 5 and 11 with the Hebrew letter separators
indicated, and alternate Septuagint year values, take a look at -[5]-
and/or -[11]- Use the browser "back" function to return to this page.)

It is proposed that each patriarch
is indeed the ancestor of the next listed patriarch, but for many of them it is
an ancestoral relationship through a number of not listed generations. As many others
have suggested, the listing of 10 patriarchs in each of the geneology sequences of
chapters 5 and 11 in the Masoretic text are listings of only the most renown men of these periods.
That when the Septuagint translation included Cainan there was no error involved,
it is just an indication that there were other direct descendants that have been
omitted and for some reason one scribe preferred to include Cainan. Could it be
that the scribe was a descendant of Cainan? Textual interpretation
and placement of the separators would seem to indicate that possibly only in the
cases of Adam-Seth, Methuselah-Lamech, Lamech-Noah, Noah-Shem/ Ham/ Japheth, Shem-Arphaxad,
and Terah-Abram/ Nahor/ Haran are there direct father-son relationships.
(See Appendix: C for examples of the use of the Hebrew word "yalad" , translated
as begat, to cover multi-generations in additional passages of Genesis.)

Are the listed patriarchs the only ones that lived to such old ages? Of course
we can't know the answer to this question. Possibly brevity was of
a necessity because early sections of the Genesis record had been passed down orally
through many generations before writing came into existence. The narrative can however
be used as an indicator that as Josephus puts it "...they attain to so long a
duration of life, for those ancients were beloved of God and made by himself;
and because their food was then fitter for the prolongation of life,..."

Conclusion: We have briefly reviewed the confusing state of the interpretations
of the Genesis record that allows some to propose many varied dates for the creation of Adam
and for the flood. And have instead proposed that to use these portions of the Scriptures
to determine dates is an incorrect interpretation. Instead for the times in
question we will have to depend upon the best estimates that scientific technology
can provide for us. And at present it would appear that the best estimates would be
8,000 BC to 10,000 BC for the time of the flood (see the Flood)
and 12,000 BC to 13,000 BC for the time
of Adam. Hopefully in the near future the scientists will be able to provide us
with better estimates for these dates as technology continues to improve.

Now, Lets say it in Different Words

Why it is NOT proper to "add up" the genealogies of Genesis chapter 5 and chapter 11 !

1) "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6

a) NO where does the Bible "add up" the genealogies !

b) Or say to "add up" the genealogies !

c) Nor hint at how they should be "added up"!

d) Those that do so must assume that they know how the ancients did genealogies !
But, in fact they often used different rules than just a strict biological father to son lineage.
(See Appendix A below.)

2) The difficulties with assuming one knows how to "add up" the genealogies

a) Luke adds a name: In Luke 3:35-36 he includes a Cainan between Salah and Arphaxad.
Genesis 11:12-13 includes No name between Arphaxad and Salah. Cainan is the
son of Arphaxad and Shelah is the son of Cainan according to Luke; while in
the Chronicle this name is not found. However, in Hebrew traditional lineage
this name can be found, it is found in the Greek Septuagint Version. Why was
this name not in our Bible and found in Septuagint and tradition? By some Hebrew
traditions if a person died when they are very
young before they have a chance to establish a name for himself, the child born
to them will be known as the child of the living grandfather. This practice
is shown in the book of Ruth where Ruth’s son Obed is referred to as the son
of Naomi. Ruth 14:7. If the son died before he established himself and legally took possession
of the properties and rights as a son he would not be listed. Or if they were of bad reputation
they might not be listed. Was the latter the case with Cainan?
In The Patriarchal Age: or, the History and Religion of Mankind (1854), George Smith writes[1]:
"It is remarkable that, notwithstanding the omission of the name of Cainan from the Hebrew text,
and the consequent general rejection of him by historians, there are more traditions
preserved of him than of his son Salah. 'The Alexandrine Chronicle derives the Samaritans
from Cainan; Eustachius Antiochenus, the Saggodians; George Syncellus, the Gaspheni;
Epiphanius the Cajani. Besides the particulars already mentioned, it is said Cainan
was the first after the flood who invented astronomy (astrology), and that his sons made a god of him,
and worshipped his image after his death. The founding of the city of Harran in Mesopotamia
is also attributed to him; which, it is pretended, is so called from a son he had of that name.'
-Anc. Univ. Hist., vol. i, p. 96, note."
Such a deletion would not be acceptable to the
gentile world where actual parenthood is always counted. Many scholars have long
proposed that due to the poetic similarity of Genesis chapter 5 and chapter 11 verses
10 thru 26 that only the most notable men were listed.

b) Is Luke favoring the Septuagint translation? If Luke is favoring the Septuagint translation that also includes Cainan
then we have a problem since the Septuagint has many
different numbers in the genealogies, (see the figure below.) "The Bible Knowledge Commentary"
by John Walvoord and Roy Zuck reports that though Luke had relatively few
direct quotations from the Old Testament,
15 times his "references and quotations .. are based on the Septuagint." (The quote of 7:27
appears to be from an unknown text.)

c) Yalad is multi-generational: The Hebrew word "yalad" (Strong's #3205) can indicate
multi-generations, thus some scholars have proposed that
Genesis is using the "Patriarchal-Age" method which unless it was obvious
from the text that there was a direct father-son relationship,
there was instead an ancestral relationship with the named descendant
being born during the year of the death of the patriarch. (see Appendix A below)

Following we have the usage of "begat" ("yalad") including not only the patriarch,
but entire families/tribes.

"And Canaan begat ("yalad") Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
And the Jebusite, and the Amorite and the Girgasite,
And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite:
and afterward were the families of the Cannanites spread abroad."
(Genesis 10:15-18)

Following we have the usage of "bare/begat" ("yalad") including 16 offspring
in two generations.

"And sons of Gad; Ziphion, and Haggi, Shuni, and Ezbon, Eri, and Arodi, and Areli.
And the sons of Asher; Jimnah, and Ishuah, and Isui, and Beriah,
and Serah their sister: and the sons of Beriah; Heber, and Malchiel.
These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter,
and these she bare ("yalad") unto Jacob, even sixteen souls."
(Genesis 46:16-18)

e) The use of the term son is completely flexible: Christ was the son of David,
and in 1 Chron. 26:24, we read: "Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses,
was ruler of the treasures." This was in David's time, several hundred years
after Moses. Yet Gershom was the son of Moses, while Shebuel was twelve or
fifteen generations from the person whose son he is said to be;

d) Matthew skips names: One would possibly think that
Matthew in his genealogy for Christ would have copied directly from the Chronicles, but in fact
in verse 1:8 there is skipped three names between Jehoram
and Uzziah (Azariah) that 1 Chronicles 3:10-11 includes, that of Akaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.
Affirming as " The Bible Knowledge Commentary" by Walvoord and Zuck says
"Jewish reckoning did not require every name in order to satisfy a genealogy."

Therefore, the Biblical genealogies are often formulated under rules that
differ from the strict biological father to son lineage.

Appendix A: Sample Chronological Calculations

"Archbishop Ussher, an illustrious prelate of the Irish Church .... His chronological
labors were directed toward affording an idea of the time that elapsed between certain
events in recorded history. For this purpose he took the year 1 A.D.--the beginning
of the Christian era--as his starting point, and calculated backwards as far
as reliable recorded history afforded good working ground. He reckoned as far
back as 4004 B.C., and then finding no more available material in the form of history,
either written or inscribed, he had to stop. He did not mean to imply that he had
reached the point of creation at all. On the contrary, he had simply gone as
far as recorded history enabled him to go." (from Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible,
Compiled and Edited by Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D. 1984)

"Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656) attempted to calculate the date of Creation by
adding the generations of the patriarchs before Abraham. He arrived at a date of 4004 BC
for the Creation. We now know his calculations were in error. There was simply
not enough time between Noah and Abraham based on his figures. Noah is said to have
lived for 350 years after the flood. But, adding the generations for the patriarchs
between Noah and Abraham yields only 292 years. Thus Abraham would have been 58
years old when Noah died. This does not square with other statements of Scripture
which indicate that Abraham's family and certainly his peers, were idolaters when
God called him out of his ancestral land (Jos 24:2). If Noah were still alive, or recently
deceased, idolatry would not be flourishing and the Flood still fresh in men's
memories.

There are gaps, names missing, in the genealogical records in Genesis 11 and
Genesis 5. We know this by comparing them with those in Luke 3. The term "begat"
can and often did refer not to a son, but to a grandson or great-grand-son. In
at least one case, it was an ancestor removed by 400 years! (Compare Ex 6:20 with Nm 3:17-19 and
27-28--see also Matthew 1:8 where three generations are omitted and I Chronicles 26:24
where there are 400 years between Shebuel and Gershom.)

The Bible implies great antiquity for the events of Genesis 11, the Tower of
Babel and the separation of nations. By the time Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees
and Haran to enter the land of Canaan there were already Kenites, Kennizzites,
Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites
and Jebusites there (Gn 15:19). In Egypt, the Pharaonic dynasties were already
powerful (Gn 12:15). Philistines had arrived in Canaan from Caphtor (the island of Crete)
and were in Canaan before Abraham arrived (Jer 47:4; Gn 20:2). It is not
unreasonable to allow 2,000 years or perhaps as much as 4,000 years between the
Flood and Abraham." (from "How Old Are Those Hills?" by Austin Robbins, B&S Vol. 11,
No. 3, Summer 1998)

Following is an extract from "The Interlinear Bible" (1986) by J. P. Green, Sr. , page 9,
showing the Hebrew Masoretic text with added bold arrows to indicated the "Samech"
separators.

..."in the Masoretic texts and is present in our Hebrew Bibles today. A samech
(the Hebrew "s") between sentences indicates a paragraph break of smaller degree, while a pe (the Hebrew "p")
between the ending of a sentence on one line and the beginning of a new sentence on another indicates a larger
break." (from http://www.fuller.edu/ministry/berean/chs_vss.htm)

The samech break appears 8 times in chapter 5, 8 times in chapter 11, and a total
of only 15 more times in the other 48 chapters of Genesis.

( To view a translation of chapters 5 and 11 with the Hebrew letter separators
indicated take a look at -[5]- and/or -[11]- Use
the browser "back" function to return to this page.)

Following we have the usage of "begat" ("yalad") including not only the patriarch, but entire
families/tribes.

And Canaan begat ("yalad") Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
And the Jebusite, and the Amorite and the Girgasite,
And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite:
and afterward were the families of the Cannanites spread abroad.
(Genesis 10:15-18)

Following we have the usage of "bare/begat" ("yalad") including 16 offspring in two
generations.

And sons of Gad; Ziphion, and Haggi, Shuni, and Ezbon, Eri, and Arodi, and Areli.
And the sons of Asher; Jimnah, and Ishuah, and Isui, and Beriah,
and Serah their sister: and the sons of Beriah; Heber, and Malchiel.
These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter,
and these she bare ("yalad") unto Jacob, even sixteen souls.
(Genesis 46:16-18)

Appendix D: Chronology of Ancient Egypt

The concept of an exact chronology
for any civilization is fraught with danger and that of Egypt is
certainly no exception. We are after all, dealing with a society
with very little in the way of written history or literature to assist
us. The Romans recorded events in relation to the traditional founding
of Rome in 753 BC and the accessions of the various consuls and
emperors; the Greeks from the date of the first Olympic Games in 776 BC.
Egyptian chronology however, is a mixture of legend, fiction,
astronomical data, documentary 'evidence' and an awful lot of guesswork!

In theory, history is arranged into
31 'Dynasties', each one being a collection of rulers from the same
power base. This system was first employed by Manetho, High Priest and
scribe at Heliopolis; who was ordered by Ptolemy II Philadelphus to
write a history of the previous rulers. Manetho's list stretches
from Menes (traditionally the first king of a unified Egypt) down to his
own time. As well as the names of each king, he gives the length
and some of the events of each reign. He was able to use the
records held at the temple of Heliopolis, such as 'King Lists'. These
original source documents have unfortunately, not survived, in many
cases having been written on papyrus.

The Ancient Egyptians had no
single, continuous era for counting years, such as our modern use of BC
and AD. Instead, they dated documents and events by the year of the
current pharaoh's reign. It is difficult to establish the exact
order and length of each reign, as some kings ruled simultaneously in
different parts of the country. There are ancient 'King-Lists',
but these are not complete (sometimes for political or ideological
reasons) and there are many gaps to fill.

Egyptian records of astronomical
observations were sometimes dated by the king's regnal year. Using these
rare occurrences we can attempt to calculate when this took place,
giving a possible date BC in our own calendar. These are the cause of
many arguments in egyptological circles however, so must be treated with
the utmost caution.

Whilst modern research has thrown
up many inaccuracies (in particular the individual reign lengths) the
order of the various rulers together with the breaks in Dynasty are
still very largely as Manetho wrote it in the 4th Century BC.
Egyptologists today divide Manetho's Dynastic system into historical
eras; reflecting stages of political stability, divided by times of
relative internal strife or transition called 'Intermediate
Periods'.

The main historical divisions now in general use
are:

Dynasty

Approx. Dates

Historical Period

Capital

5000-3150
BC

PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

5000-4000
BC

Badarian

4000-3500
BC

Amratian (Naqada
I)

3500-3150
BC

Gerzean (Naqada
II)

0

3150-3050
BC

ARCHAIC
PERIOD

1

3050-2890
BC

Memphis

2

2890-2686
BC

3

2686-2613
BC

THE OLD KINGDOM

Memphis

4

2613-2498
BC

5

2498-2345
BC

6

2345-2181
BC

7
& 8

2181-2161
BC

1ST
INTERMEDIATE PERIOD

Memphis

9
& 10

2160-2040
BC

Herakleopolis

11

2134-1991
BC

THE MIDDLE KINGDOM

Thebes

12

1991-1782
BC

13
& 14

1782-1650
BC

2ND
INTERMEDIATE PERIOD

Delta

15
& 16

1663-1555
BC

Avaris

17

1663-1570
BC

Thebes

18

1570-1293
BC

THE NEW KINGDOM

Thebes

19

1293-1185
BC

20

1185-1070
BC

21

1069-945
BC

3RD
INTERMEDIATE PERIOD

Tanis

22

945-715
BC

Bubastis

23

818-715
BC

24

727-715
BC

Sais

25

747-656
BC

Kush

26

664-525
BC

THE
LATE PERIOD

Sais

27

525-404
BC

Persian
I

28

404-399
BC

Sais

29

399-380
BC

Mendes

30

380-343
BC

31

343-332
BC

Persian
II

332BC-323AD

GRAECO-ROMAN ERAS

332-305
BC

Macedonian
Empire

305-30
BC

Ptolemaic
Empire

30 BC-323
AD

Roman Empire

(copied from http://www.smashman.iofm.net/new4chronology.html)

The above table starts at around 7000 B.P., however,
very interestingly "11,600 years ago marked the beginning of the Rule of Mortal
Humans on Earth according to Manetho (Egyptian historian ca. 343 BC)" prior to that was
"Rule by Demigods and Spirits of the Dead (followers of Horus)".
(from http://www.innerx.net/ personal/ tsmith/ iceciv.html)
A very close correspondence to the indicated termination of the Younger Dryas (11,550 +-70 B.P.
per the GRIP ice core data)
and the time we would choose as the most likely time of the flood, and soon afterward
the tribes would start multiplying and migrating from the "Ararat" area into lower
lands of the most northern part of the fertile crescent where the archaeologists
have uncovered the first evidences of large
scale farming and community building, around 10,000 to 11,000 B.P..

You ask, why include a quote from an ancient Egyptian Historian
who writes of "demigods and spirits of the dead".?
"It is ironic that although great reliance is placed upon Manetho and his
"Egyptian History", no full text of his work actually survives. Manetho's
history is known to us because several writers whose works have survived
quoted extensively from it. These writers included Josephus, writing in
the late 1st century AD, Sextus Julius Africanus, writing around the year
220 AD, and Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in the early 4th century AD.
Around five hundred years later, the works of Sextus Julius and Bishop Eusebius
were used as a basis for a history of the world, written by George the Monk who
was the secretary to the Byzantine Patriarch Tarasius (784-806 AD).
All of these writers took only the extracts that they wanted from Manetho's work,
so his account exists only in fragments within these later works."
(from http://www.egyptologyonline.com/manetho.htm))

Concerning "the beginning of the Rule of Mortal Humans on Earth" according to Manetho, even
though Adam and his offspring were to multiply and have "dominion", it is not until after the
flood that we read:

Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
And the fear of you and the dread of you
shall be upon every beast of the earth.(Genesis 9:1-2)

Therefore we can conclude that probably before the flood mankind never fully
had "dominion", that this was to happened only after the flood,
"the beginning of the Rule of Mortal Humans on Earth".

(Note: We won't try to explain "demigods and spirits of the dead", but one
could possibly contemplate the meaning of Genesis 6:4 which is also very controversial.)

The Bible geneaology of the Old Testament book of Genesis, can they
be used to set dates in Biblical history?